Rob Wal-Mart to Pay Peter and Paul?
By Randall Nunn (02/11/06)
A national retail industry trade association filed suit this week challenging a Maryland law designed to coerce Wal-Mart into spending more money on health care for its employees. The law requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care or pay the difference to Maryland’s Medicaid fund. Wal-Mart is the only company in Maryland of that size that doesn’t meet the 8% threshold. Supporters of the Maryland law say it is needed “because some Wal-Mart employees rely on taxpayer-funded Medicaid health coverage.” I would hazard a guess that none of the same people have a problem with illegal immigrants relying upon state provided health coverage or other benefits even though they are not paying their fair share of the cost. Could it be that politics is the motivation behind these health care laws rather than concern for the taxpayers of the state?
According to news reports, politicians in as many as thirty other states are considering such legislation. The growing government bureaucracies have an insatiable appetite for more money to fund more, and ever-growing, programs. What better place to get some of this money than from corporations that are generating revenues in their states? The average taxpayer will not squawk too loudly because he or she is not paying this tax (or so they think). The best tax is the one someone else has to pay and since Wal-Mart is a faceless corporation that is the current target of the mainstream media, what better victim?
At the same time that politicians in some states (“blue” states like Maryland and Washington leading the way) are attempting to squeeze money out of Wal-Mart to support their health care initiatives, the governor of Minnesota was reporting that as many as 85,000 illegal immigrants live in Minnesota, at a cost to taxpayers of that state of up to $188 million a year. One would think that politicians would demand action to deal with the problem of illegal immigration since it results in the state’s taxpayers unfairly funding welfare and health coverage for those who are here illegally. But one has to listen long and hard to hear any liberals clamoring for stronger measures against illegal immigration. Maybe if the states were not paying out so much to support illegal immigrants, their health and welfare funds would be adequate. Maybe what is needed is a taxpayer suit against governments that ignore violations of the immigration laws, thereby imposing a greater burden on the lawful taxpayers.
It probably surprises no one that the labor unions in Maryland were heavy backers of the “anti-Wal-Mart” law. According to news reports, these same labor unions are pushing for similar legislation around the country. And most of us know that strong labor union support generally means strong Democratic support. So these new laws are being pushed heavily by special interest groups with political muscle. One would think the media would alert the citizens of this country to the pernicious influence of special interest groups lobbying to get special legislation passed that targets specific companies. The Maryland law is a classic example of special interest legislation. Apparently the media is not interested in liberal special interest groups but only “big oil”, non-union companies and, of course, Halliburton. Has there ever been a more glaring example of the double standard used by the mainstream media in reporting today?
Copyright 2006 Randall H. Nunn
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
